Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: November 14, 2002 Email: mhitchcock @ci.college - station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning from R -3 Townhouse and A -O Agricultual Open to PDD -H Planned Development District — Housing for 16.316 acres of the Robert Stevenson Survey A -54 located 1 /2 mile north of Greens Prairie Rd., west of SH 6. (02 -225) Applicant: Wallace Phillips for Spring Creek CS Development, Ltd. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning. Item Summary: This property is 16.316 acres out of the 259.12 -acre Crowley Tract. The area was proposed for townhouse use in the Master Development Plan and subsequently rezoned to R -3 Townhouse. Property to the north is zoned A -O and is owned by a different entity. Surrounding property in the Crowley Tract was rezoned at the same time of the subject property. The regional detention facility and the proposed major collectors remained A -O while other nearby areas were zoned R -4 Apartment/Low Density and C -1 General Commercial. All land surrounding the subject area is undeveloped. The applicant would still like to develop townhouses on the subject property, but is asking for PDD -H so a more flexible standard may be applied to the development. The meritorious modifications requested are (with staff comments in italics): • Parking spaces adjacent to the public street in the cul -de -sacs. Because of safety and circulation issues, Staff does not support parking spaces in the right -of -way, nor would recommend allowing it through the rezoning process. • A change in the minimum number of attached dwelling units from 3 to 2. By definition, townhouse lots are in groups of no less than 3. The developer has the option to create single family lots under the zoning restrictions of District R -1A or may request duplexes built under the restrictions of R -2 through the Conditional Use Permit process. • A change in the maximum number of lots allowed on a cul -de -sac from 24 to 30. On the proposed plat for this development, some lots could take access from other streets, reducing the occurrence of this situation. Also, a subdivision variance to this requirement could be requested at the time of platting. Connectivity is a valid planning concept, so it could be that more roads should be provided. • Varying front and side setbacks. The Zoning Board of Adjustments hears requests for setback variances. They may be granted after the applicant proves a hardship as a result of a special condition of the land. To justify the rezoning, the developer plans to: • Create a development that utilizes public streets. This is the standard for the City of College Station. • Provide a net density of 13.7 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is allowed by ordinance, so staff does not consider this to be a benefit. • Construct a boulevard street section. In other areas of College Station, street medians are commonly used for landscaping and subdivision signage. While boulevards may be an integral part of an innovative design, Staff does not feel that the section that is proposed meets the idea of innovative development design. • Provide common areas against the proposed Oxburgh right -of -way. If landscaped and maintained, staff does recognize this as a more desirable option for land against a right -of -way than the back of fences and residences. • Build a swimming pool and pavilion for development residents. Staff considers these amenities to be more of a marketing tool than a community benefit. • Build six -foot walks to provide connectivity to other parts of the development. The sidewalks shown along the streets on the concept plan would be required through the city's Subdivision Regulations. They would be required to be six feet wide from the back of the curb, or four feet wide two feet from the curb. If Staff feels sidewalks are necessary to provide pedestrian connectivity to other parts of the development (such as a park), we will request them through the platting process and the Planning and Zoning Commission will be the final authority. The applicant has proposed walks that would be six feet wide away from the curb. Staff feels that the larger walks are an integral part of innovative design, but do not constitute innovative design. Staff is recommending denial of this rezoning because zoning is already in place that would allow the applicant to build townhouses and because we do not feel the proposal meets the intent of the PDD Policy adopted by City Council in August 2001. In addition, processes are in place to request variances many of the modifications that are being requested. A preliminary plat for a townhouse development on this property was submitted to the City, but it will not be accepted for consideration until after the rezoning request has been processed. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan designates this area as Single Family Residential Medium Density. Last year, a Master Development Plan for the Crowley Tract was approved. The subject property was identified as future R -3 Townhouses, and was later rezoned as such. The Master Development Plan also shows the future Oxburgh Drive (major collector) and the Thoroughfare Plan's Decatur Drive (major collector) as abutting the subject parcel. Item Background: This property was annexed into the city in 1983. It was rezoned in accordance with the Crowley Tract Master Development Plan in 2001. The property has not yet platted. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board considered parkland dedication for the entire Crowley Tract when its Master Development Plan was proposed in 2001. The conditions of approval placed on the dedication would have to be resolved before any residential portion of the Crowley Tract could final plat. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend a less intense zoning classification; 3. Recommend denial; 4. Table indefinitely; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Copy of Concept Plan 5. City of College Station PDD Policy INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Public water will be extended along thoroughfares and into property for domestic use and fire protection. Sewer: The Spring Creek Impact Fee sewer line transects the area. Streets: Decatur is shown as a minor collector on the T -fare Plan. Oxburgh will need to be constructed to SH 6 to provide access. Off -site Easements: None. Drainage: Drainage will be to Spring Creek. The regional detention pond was constructed to offset post - development drainage impacts to downstream areas. Flood Plain: Floodplain occurs on the east side of the property along the watercourse. A LOMR has been approved by FEMA to relocate the floodplain after channel improvements and detention pond improvements have been completed. Oversize request: OP may be requested on Decatur. However, the request must be made based on ultimate impact and not intermittent development impact. Impact Fees: Sewer impact fees, 97 -01, will be assessed $345.95 per Living Unit Equivalent. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10 -29 -02 and 11 -20 -02 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11 -14 -02 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12 -5 -02 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 9 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. Spring Creek Townhomes Subdivision PDD -H Zoning — 16.316 Acres Meritorious Modifications The Owner /Developer of this property is requesting a zoning change from R -3 — Townhouses to Planned Development District — Housing (PDD -H) to allow for the subdivision to be developed as shown on the Master Preliminary Plat. Several meritorious modifications to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance are requested to accommodate the proposed plan. The requested modifications are as follows: • Allow a minimum of 2 attached dwelling units instead of 3 units for townhouses. Only 2 adjacent lots can be positioned in one area of the tract due to the existing utility easements. This would allow the construction of dwelling units on these lots. Also, allowing only 2 attached units will make it possible to separate a group of contiguous dwelling units in areas where there are 4 or 5 lots in succession in the subdivision. • Increase the maximum number of lots allowed on a cul -de -sac street from 24 to 30 lots. The townhouse lots are much narrower than a single - family residential lot and a maximum of 24 lots limits the cul -de -sac street length to much less than the 600 feet maximum allowed by the Subdivision Regulations. • Allow parking spaces to be constructed adjacent to the street in the right -of -way of the bulb of the cul -de -sac streets. The parking spaces would be constructed partially in the street right -of -way and partially in common areas adjacent to the right -of -way. The parking spaces will be in areas of limited traffic volume due to their location at the end of the cul -de -sac streets. The parking spaces will increase the parking available for visitors to the subdivision. • The minimum front building setback distance is requested to be 20 feet rather than the 25 feet required for R -3 Zoning. This will allow more buildable area on the numerous lots that will have the existing utility easements located across them, which limits the dwelling unit size. It is also requested to change the minimum side setback distance for each group of contiguous buildings from 7.5 feet to 5 feet. The minimum distance between buildings would be 10 feet. The 5 feet side setback has been used successfully for single - family dwellings in Section 4 of the Castlegate Subdivision, and the Developer requests this change for this subdivision. Justification for PDD -H Zoning Meritorious Modifications to City Standards The Developer desires to develop the property as a conventional townhouse community with each dwelling unit on a separate lot with public streets instead of private streets, which many of the similar developments have chosen to use for access to each lot. It is the Developer's opinion that those type of developments are not distinguishable from a condominium or apartment project. Developments with private access streets typically do not have a dedicated street right -of -way; only access easements on the lots. This allow for a greater density of residential structures than can be achieved with a development using public streets. District R -3 Townhouse Zoning allows a maximum net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The PDD -H development being proposed will have a gross density of 8.7 dwelling units per acre and a net density (excluding street right -of -way and common areas) of 13.7 dwelling units per acre. The Developer has incorporated some amenities into this development which will benefit not only the residents of this development, but the City as well. These include a boulevard street section off of Oxburgh Drive, which can include landscaping in the median. Also, none of the lots will be adjacent to the Oxburgh right -of -way, which will allow for landscaping and streetscaping in these common areas. A swimming pool and pavilion are proposed with a parking lot for the residents of the development. Sidewalks are proposed which will make the pool area accessible by pedestrians from any part of the development. Six feet wide concrete walks are also proposed in three locations to provide a connection for pedestrians and bicyclists to Decatur Drive and Oxburgh Drive. Decatur Drive is proposed to be constructed with a street section that includes a bike lane. This development is part of the 331.4 -acre Crowley Tract. The Crowley Tract includes a 38.1 acre conservation zone tract and 2 deed restricted open space tracts, which are 21.1 and 11.6 acres in size, respectively. Also, a 5.5 acre park is proposed. These areas are approximately 23% of the property which will be left as open space and not developed. These areas will preserve the existing wetlands and vegetation along the riparian corridors that they follow. Also, there is a detention facility which has some usable area for limited recreational activities. The Developer feels that the location of this proposed PDD -H development is such that the residents can access and use this open space, and it can be considered an additional amenity that will make people desire to reside in this development. PDD POLICY AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CITY COUNCIL On August 9, 2001 AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION On July 16, 2001 The goal of the Planned Development District is to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. In order to justify varying from certain standards, the proposed development should demonstrate community benefits. To achieve this goal, the City of College Station has adopted the following policies: 1. CONCEPTS ONLY: A PDD should not be used to guarantee specific site or building characteristics within a development. A PDD should be submitted for multiple sites, and should not be used to apply additional development standards to a single site. 2. RELIANCE ON EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: A PDD should not be used to require buffering or other standards that are over and above existing district standards. If the existing buffering standards are deemed inadequate, the standards themselves should be reviewed and upgraded. 3. INNOVATIVE DESIGN: A PDD application should be encouraged where a development is to follow a modern trend style such as new urbanism, mixed use, or cluster, and that includes all or some of the following elements: ❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources ❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and thoroughfares ❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ Preservation of significant tree stands ❑ Inclusion of neighborhood supporting uses such as workplaces, recreation, shopping, and personal services with orientation to the neighborhood and good pedestrian and bicycle access ❑ Incorporation of public transit waiting stations in pedestrian friendly areas ❑ Accommodation of the existing topography to minimize required grading ❑ A mix of residential densities and housing styles ❑ Inclusion of urban open spaces such as plazas or marketplaces ❑ Location of elementary school sites in areas easily accessible by pedestrians and cyclists ❑ Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in surrounding areas ❑ Avoidance of cul -de -sacs ❑ Traffic calming features ❑ Vistas ❑ Pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and paths ❑ Parking located such that it is screened or hidden from view ❑ Avoidance of a monotonous "superblock" ❑ A commercial frontage that is two or three stories, with architectural embellishments ❑ Street trees and peripheral landscaping ❑ Streetscape features 4. SENSITIVE AREAS: A PDD should be required in infill areas to assure similar residential densities to those of the surrounding area. 5. MERITORIOUS MODIFICATIONS: A developer may choose to request a PDD if the proposed development will result in alternative bulk standards than currently exist in the City of College Station development regulations. These may include variations such as: ➢ Decreased lot size ➢ Decreased lot dimensions ➢ Decreased right -of -way and/or street widths ➢ Alternative access to the public street requirements for lots, such as may be desired for traffic calming or to create vistas /views to internal or external amenities ➢ Reduction in standard buffering requirements or fencing requirements ➢ Increase in height restrictions ➢ Alternative sidewalk requirements ➢ Alternative site landscaping requirements If the developer requests significant variations from the above list, the plans should also include a significant amount of elements from the first list of beneficial development elements. COLLEGE STATION CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979)764 -3570 / Fax (979)764 -3496 TO: �(,fl /5 4///,‘ 614 - / FROM: Susan Hazlett, Staff Assistant DATE: November 11, 2002 RE: Staff Report P &Z Meeting, November 14, 2002 Following this coversheet is a copy of the Staff Report that was prepared for the following project. Please keep in mind that staff's responsibility is to provide the Planning & Zoning Commission with all pertinent facts of a development case, but that staff is not acting as an advocate for the applicants. Therefore, it is in the applicant's best interest to send a representative to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to speak on behalf of the proposal. This item is scheduled for the Thursday, November 14, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. This meeting will begin at 6:00 P.M. in City Hall Council Chambers. I have included a copy of the agenda for this meeting. Please contact our office at (979)764-3570 if you should have any questions. Thanks. AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1101 Texas Avenue November 14, 2002 6:00 P.M. 1. Hear Visitors. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on planning and zoning issues not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) 2. Public Comment for the Record. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on consent and regular agenda items that are not scheduled for a public hearing. This does not include items where hearings have been previously held. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information and it will be added to the public record. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) All matters listed under Item 3, Consent Agenda, are considered to be routine by the Planning and Zoning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plats, where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda it will be moved to the Regular Agenda for further consideration. 3. Consent Agenda. 3.1 Consideration of the minutes for the Workshop Meeting held on October 17, 2002. 3.2 Consideration of the minutes for the Regular Meeting held on October 17, 2002. 3.3 Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for Autumn Chase, consisting of 18 R -5, Apartment/Medium Density, and 5 R -2, Duplex Residential, lots on 8.35 acres located at 2304 Cornell Drive. (02 -168) 3.4 Consideration and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for Castlegate Business Center, consisting of 6 commercial lots on 20.52 acres located at 2200 Greens Prairie Road West. (02 -223) 3.5 Consideration and possible action on a Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens, Phase 3, consisting of 13 lots on 3.49 acres located at 3850 Victoria Avenue. (02 -221) 3.6 Consideration and possible action on a Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens, Phase 4, consisting of 58 lots on 14.82 acres located at 3850 Victoria Avenue. (02 - 228) This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicapped parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 409 - 764 -3517 or (TDD) 1-800- 735 -2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website http: // devservices .ci.college - station.tx.us and Cable Access Channel 19. 3.7 Consideration and possible action on a Final Plat for E &M Jones Farm Place, consisting of 1 lot on 6.7 acres located at 2520 Earl Rudder Freeway South. (02 -222) 3.8 Consideration and possible action on a Final Plat for Indian Lakes Subdivision Phase 1, consisting of 30.53 Lots on 401.03 acres located at State Highway 6. (02 -236) Regular Agenda. 4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. 5. Consider request(s) for absence from meetings. Commissioner Williams - Absence request submitted on October 17, 2002 for her absence at the November 14, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. 6. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for 3.15 acres located at 3435 Barron Cut -Off Road in the Simmons Addition, from A -O, Agricultural Open, to A -OX, Existing Rural Residential. (02 -216) 7. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning from A -O, Agricultural Open, to C -1, General Commercial, for 1.13 acres located at 2892 Graham Road. (02 -219) 8. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for 62.18 acres for Spring Creek Townhomes, formerly the Crowley Tract, from A -O, Agricultural Open, and R -3, Townhouse, to PDD -H, Planned Development Housing. (02 -225) 9. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat and Variance Request re: Access and Utilities, for Spring Meadows Phase 2, consisting of 87 lots on 32.07 acres located at 308 Greens Prairie Road. (02- 212) 10. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sections 5 and 7, regarding City initiated rezoning after annexation and the A -O, Agricultural -Open, Zoning District. (02 -215) 11. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sections 8 and 14, changing the Conditional Use Permit process. (02 -226) 12. Discussion of future agenda items. 13. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 551.0711 ; possible action. The Planning and Zoning Commission may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation subject or attorney - client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. If litigation or attorney - client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, an executive session will be held. • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: November 14, 2002 Email: mhitchcock @ci.college - station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning from R -3 Townhouse and A -O Agricultual Open to PDD -H Planned Development District — Housing for 16.316 acres of the Robert Stevenson Survey A -54 located 1 /2 mile north of Greens Prairie Rd., west of SH 6. (02 -225) Applicant: Wallace Phillips for Spring Creek CS Development, Ltd. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning. Item Summary: This property is 16.316 acres out of the 259.12 -acre Crowley Tract. The area was proposed for townhouse use in the Master Development Plan and subsequently rezoned to R -3 Townhouse. Property to the north is zoned A -O and is owned by a different entity. Surrounding property in the Crowley Tract was rezoned at the same time of the subject property. The regional detention facility and the proposed major collectors remained A -O while other nearby areas were zoned R -4 Apartment/Low Density and C -1 General Commercial. All land surrounding the subject area is undeveloped. The applicant would still like to develop townhouses on the subject property, but is asking for PDD -H so a more flexible standard may be applied to the development. The meritorious modifications requested are (with staff comments in italics): • Parking spaces adjacent to the public street in the cul -de -sacs. Because of safety and circulation issues, Staff does not support parking spaces in the right -of -way, nor would recommend allowing it through the rezoning process. • A change in the minimum number of attached dwelling units from 3 to 2. By definition, townhouse lots are in groups of no less than 3. The developer has the option to create single family lots under the zoning restrictions of District R -1A or may request duplexes built under the restrictions of R -2 through the Conditional Use Permit process. • A change in the maximum number of Tots allowed on a cul -de -sac from 24 to 30. On the proposed plat for this development, some lots could take access from other streets, reducing the occurrence of this situation. Also, a subdivision variance to this requirement could be requested at the time of platting. Connectivity is a valid planning concept, so it could be that more roads should be provided. • Varying front and side setbacks. The Zoning Board of Adjustments hears requests for setback variances. They may be granted after the applicant proves a hardship as a result of a special condition of the land. To justify the rezoning, the developer plans to: • Create a development that utilizes public streets. This is the standard for the City of College Station. • Provide a net density of 13.7 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is allowed by ordinance, so staff does not consider this to be a benefit. • Construct a boulevard street section. In other areas of College Station, street medians are commonly used for landscaping and subdivision signage. While boulevards may be an integral part of an innovative design, Staff does not feel that the section that is proposed meets the idea of innovative development design. • Provide common areas against the proposed Oxburgh right -of -way. If landscaped and maintained, staff does recognize this as a more desirable option for land against a right -of -way than the back of fences and residences. • Build a swimming pool and pavilion for development residents. Staff considers these amenities to be more of a marketing tool than a community benefit. • Build six -foot walks to provide connectivity to other parts of the development. The sidewalks shown along the streets on the concept plan would be required through the city's Subdivision Regulations. They would be required to be six feet wide from the back of the curb, or four feet wide two feet from the curb. If Staff feels sidewalks are necessary to provide pedestrian connectivity to other parts of the development (such as a park), we will request them through the platting process and the Planning and Zoning Commission will be the final authority. The applicant has proposed walks that would be six feet wide away from the curb. Staff feels that the larger walks are an integral part of innovative design, but do not constitute innovative design. Staff is recommending denial of this rezoning because zoning is already in place that would allow the applicant to build townhouses and because we do not feel the proposal meets the intent of the PDD Policy adopted by City Council in August 2001. In addition, processes are in place to request variances many of the modifications that are being requested. A preliminary plat for a townhouse development on this property was submitted to the City, but it will not be accepted for consideration until after the rezoning request has been processed. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan designates this area as Single Family Residential Medium Density. Last year, a Master Development Plan for the Crowley Tract was approved. The subject property was identified as future R -3 Townhouses, and was later rezoned as such. The Master Development Plan also shows the future Oxburgh Drive (major collector) and the Thoroughfare Plan's Decatur Drive (major collector) as abutting the subject parcel. Item Background: This property was annexed into the city in 1983. It was rezoned in accordance with the Crowley Tract Master Development Plan in 2001. The property has not yet platted. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board considered parkland dedication for the entire Crowley Tract when its Master Development Plan was proposed in 2001. The conditions of approval placed on the dedication would have to be resolved before any residential portion of the Crowley Tract could final plat. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted; 2. Recommend a less intense zoning classification; 3. Recommend denial; 4. Table indefinitely; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Copy of Concept Plan 5. City of College Station PDD Policy INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Public water will be extended along thoroughfares and into property for domestic use and fire protection. Sewer: The Spring Creek Impact Fee sewer line transects the area. Streets: Decatur is shown as a minor collector on the T -fare Plan. Oxburgh will need to be constructed to SH 6 to provide access. Off -site Easements: None. Drainage: Drainage will be to Spring Creek. The regional detention pond was constructed to offset post - development drainage impacts to downstream areas. Flood Plain: Floodplain occurs on the east side of the property along the watercourse. A LOMR has been approved by FEMA to relocate the floodplain after channel improvements and detention pond improvements have been completed. Oversize request: OP may be requested on Decatur. However, the request must be made based on ultimate impact and not intermittent development impact. Impact Fees: Sewer impact fees, 97 -01, will be assessed $345.95 per Living Unit Equivalent. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10 -29 -02 and 11 -20 -02 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11 -14 -02 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12 -5 -02 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 9 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. Spring Creek Townhomes Subdivision PDD -H Zoning — 16.316 Acres Meritorious Modifications The Owner /Developer of this property is requesting a zoning change from R -3 — Townhouses to Planned Development District — Housing (PDD -H) to allow for the subdivision to be developed as shown on the Master Preliminary Plat. Several meritorious modifications to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance are requested to accommodate the proposed plan. The requested modifications are as follows: • Allow a minimum of 2 attached dwelling units instead of 3 units for townhouses. Only 2 adjacent lots can be positioned in one area of the tract due to the existing utility easements. This would allow the construction of dwelling units on these lots. Also, allowing only 2 attached units will make it possible to separate a group of contiguous dwelling units in areas where there are 4 or 5 lots in succession in the subdivision. • Increase the maximum number of lots allowed on a cul -de -sac street from 24 to 30 lots. The townhouse lots are much narrower than a single - family residential lot and a maximum of 24 lots limits the cul -de -sac street length to much less than the 600 feet maximum allowed by the Subdivision Regulations. • Allow parking spaces to be constructed adjacent to the street in the right -of -way of the bulb of the cul -de -sac streets. The parking spaces would be constructed partially in the street right -of -way and partially in common areas adjacent to the right -of -way. The parking spaces will be in areas of limited traffic volume due to their location at the end of the cul -de -sac streets. The parking spaces will increase the parking available for visitors to the subdivision. • The minimum front building setback distance is requested to be 20 feet rather than the 25 feet required for R -3 Zoning. This will allow more buildable area on the numerous lots that will have the existing utility easements located across them, which limits the dwelling unit size. It is also requested to change the minimum side setback distance for each group of contiguous buildings from 7.5 feet to 5 feet. The minimum distance between buildings would be 10 feet. The 5 feet side setback has been used successfully for single - family dwellings in Section 4 of the Castlegate Subdivision, and the Developer requests this change for this subdivision. Justification for PDD -H Zoning Meritorious Modifications to City Standards The Developer desires to develop the property as a conventional townhouse community with each dwelling unit on a separate lot with public streets instead of private streets, which many of the similar developments have chosen to use for access to each lot. It is the Developer's opinion that those type of developments are not distinguishable from a condominium or apartment project. Developments with private access streets typically do not have a dedicated street right -of -way; only access easements on the lots. This allow for a greater density of residential structures than can be achieved with a development using public streets. District R -3 Townhouse Zoning allows a maximum net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The PDD -H development being proposed will have a gross density of 8.7 dwelling units per acre and a net density (excluding street right -of -way and common areas) of 13.7 dwelling units per acre. The Developer has incorporated some amenities into this development which will benefit not only the residents of this development, but the City as well. These include a boulevard street section off of Oxburgh Drive, which can include landscaping in the median. Also, none of the lots will be adjacent to the Oxburgh right -of -way, which will allow for landscaping and streetscaping in these common areas. A swimming pool and pavilion are proposed with a parking lot for the residents of the development. Sidewalks are proposed which will make the pool area accessible by pedestrians from any part of the development. Six feet wide concrete walks are also proposed in three locations to provide a connection for pedestrians and bicyclists to Decatur Drive and Oxburgh Drive. Decatur Drive is proposed to be constructed with a street section that includes a bike lane. This development is part of the 331.4 -acre Crowley Tract. The Crowley Tract includes a 38.1 acre conservation zone tract and 2 deed restricted open space tracts, which are 21.1 and 11.6 acres in size, respectively. Also, a 5.5 acre park is proposed. These areas are approximately 23% of the property which will be left as open space and not developed. These areas will preserve the existing wetlands and vegetation along the riparian corridors that they follow. Also, there is a detention facility which has some usable area for limited recreational activities. The Developer feels that the location of this proposed PDD -H development is such that the residents can access and use this open space, and it can be considered an additional amenity that will make people desire to reside in this development. PDD POLICY AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CITY COUNCIL On August 9, 2001 AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION On July 16, 2001 The goal of the Planned Development District is to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. In order to justify varying from certain standards, the proposed development should demonstrate community benefits. To achieve this goal, the City of College Station has adopted the following policies: 1. CONCEPTS ONLY: A PDD should not be used to guarantee specific site or building characteristics within a development. A PDD should be submitted for multiple sites, and should not be used to apply additional development standards to a single site. 2. RELIANCE ON EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: A PDD should not be used to require buffering or other standards that are over and above existing district standards. If the existing buffering standards are deemed inadequate, the standards themselves should be reviewed and upgraded. 3. INNOVATIVE DESIGN: A PDD application should be encouraged where a development is to follow a modern trend style such as new urbanism, mixed use, or cluster, and that includes all or some of the following elements: ❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources ❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and thoroughfares ❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ Preservation of significant tree stands ❑ Inclusion of neighborhood supporting uses such as workplaces, recreation, shopping, and personal services with orientation to the neighborhood and good pedestrian and bicycle access ❑ Incorporation of public transit waiting stations in pedestrian friendly areas ❑ Accommodation of the existing topography to minimize required grading ❑ A mix of residential densities and housing styles ❑ Inclusion of urban open spaces such as plazas or marketplaces ❑ Location of elementary school sites in areas easily accessible by pedestrians and cyclists ❑ Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in surrounding areas o Avoidance of cul -de -sacs o Traffic calming features ❑ Vistas ❑ Pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and paths ❑ Parking located such that it is screened or hidden from view ❑ Avoidance of a monotonous "superblock" ❑ A commercial frontage that is two or three stories, with architectural embellishments ❑ Street trees and peripheral landscaping ❑ Streetscape features 4. SENSITIVE AREAS: A PDD should be required in infill areas to assure similar residential densities to those of the surrounding area. 5. MERITORIOUS MODIFICATIONS: A developer may choose to request a PDD if the proposed development will result in alternative bulk standards than currently exist in the City of College Station development regulations. These may include variations such as: ➢ Decreased lot size ➢ Decreased lot dimensions ➢ Decreased right -of -way and/or street widths ➢ Alternative access to the public street requirements for lots, such as may be desired for traffic calming or to create vistas /views to internal or external amenities ➢ Reduction in standard buffering requirements or fencing requirements ➢ Increase in height restrictions ➢ Alternative sidewalk requirements ➢ Alternative site landscaping requirements If the developer requests significant variations from the above list, the plans should also include a significant amount of elements from the first list of beneficial development elements. > ,r AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 Rezoning Spring Creek Townhomes Formerly the Crowley Tract STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Molly Hitchcock Date: November 14, 2002 Email: mhitchcock @ci.college - station.tx.us Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning from R -3 Townhouse and A -O Agricultual Open to PDD -H Planned Development District — Housing for 16.316 acres of the Robert Stevenson Survey A -54 located '/2 mile north of Greens Prairie Rd., west of SH 6. (02 -225) Applicant: Wallace Phillips for Spring Creek CS Development, Ltd. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning. Item Summary: This property is 16.316 acres out of the 259.12 -acre Crowley Tract. The area was proposed for townhouse use in the Master Development Plan and subsequently rezoned to R -3 Townhouse. Property to the north is zoned A -O and is owned by a different entity. Surrounding property in the Crowley Tract was rezoned at the same time of the subject property. The regional detention facility and the proposed major collectors remained A -O while other nearby areas were zoned R -4 Apartment/Low Density and C -1 General Commercial. All land surrounding the subject area is undeveloped. The applicant would still like to develop townhouses on the subject property, but is asking for PDD -H so a more flexible standard may be applied to the development. The meritorious modifications requested are (with staff comments in italics): • Parking spaces adjacent to the public street in the cul -de -sacs. Because of safety and circulation issues, Staff does not support parking spaces in the right -of -way, nor would recommend allowing it through the rezoning process. • A change in the minimum number of attached dwelling units from 3 to 2. By definition, townhouse lots are in groups of no less than 3. The developer has the option to create single family lots under the zoning restrictions of District R - 1A or may request duplexes built under the restrictions of R - 2 through the Conditional Use Permit process. • A change in the maximum number of lots allowed on a cul -de -sac from 24 to 30. On the proposed plat for this development, some lots could take access from other streets, reducing the occurrence of this situation. Also, a subdivision variance to this requirement could be requested at the time of platting. \ \A \,�oc�e - W "mil — �•2 ` S y vc� -� � �- f INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: Public water will be extended along thoroughfares and into property for domestic use and fire protection. Sewer: The Spring Creek Impact Fee sewer line transects the area. Streets: Decatur is shown as a minor collector on the T -fare Plan. Oxburgh will need to be constructed to SH 6 to provide access. Off -site Easements: None. Drainage: Drainage will be to Spring Creek. The regional detention pond was constructed to offset post - development drainage impacts to downstream areas. Flood Plain: Floodplain occurs on the east side of the property along the watercourse. A LOMR has been approved by FEMA to relocate the floodplain after channel improvements and detention pond improvements have been completed. Oversize request: OP may be requested on Decatur. However, the request must be made based on ultimate impact and not intermittent development impact. Impact Fees: Sewer impact fees, 97 -01, will be assessed $345.95 per Living Unit Equivalent. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10 -29 -02 and 11 -20 -02 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11 -14 -02 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 12 -5 -02 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 9 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. Existing R -3 Townhouse: Proposed PDD -H, Planned Development District - PURPOSE: This district contains land Housing which is to be used for a unique type of PURPOSE: The Planned Development Districts (PDD) dwelling, which is designed for individual accommodate proposals for the same or similar uses to be developed as integrated units such as offices, conunercial or ownership or ownership in group of single service centers, shopping centers, industrial uses, residential family attached residences constructed on developments or proposals where any appropriate combination of uses which may be planned, developed or operated as integral land individually platted lots. use units either by a single owner or a combination of owners. A PDD may be used to permit new or innovative concepts inland PERMITTED USES: utilization not permitted by other zoning districts in this ordinance. It may also be used to permit developments that existing districts • Duplex dwelling units. d o not easily accommodate. While eater flexibility is p g y gr y given to • Single family dwellings, built under the allow special conditions or restrictions, which would not otherwise allow the development to occur, procedures are established to restrictions of District R -1A. insure against misuse of increased flexibility. The PDDs are • Home occupations. appropriate in areas where the land use plan reflects either the specific uses proposed in the PDD or where the land use plan reflects mixed use as a land use category. Existing fI -O, Agricultural -Open: PROHIBITED USES: The following uses are not allowed in PURPOSE: This district includes lands any PD District: within the corporate limits of the City, which • Sexually oriented enterprises • Mobile or manufactured housing are not subdivided and are relatively undeveloped. This district is designed to PERMITTED USES: Any use permitted in the residential promote order, timely, economical growth and zoning districts. to recognize current conditions. It is a R -1, R -1A, R -1B, Single Family Residential: reserved area in which the future growth of the • Single family dwellings. • Home occupations. City can occur. R -2, Duplex Residential • Duplex dwelling units. PERMITTED USES: • Single family dwellings, built under the restrictions of • Single family dwellings District R -1A. • • Home Occupations. Mobile Homes, located pursuant to an approved location permit as provided in R -3, Townhouse Section 7.9H. (As amended by Ordinance • Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of District R -1A. No. 2257 dated August 12, 1997.) • Townhomes. • HUD -code manufactured homes, located • Home occupations. pursuant to an approved location permit as R-4, Apartment/Low Density provided in Section 7.9H. (As amended • Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of by Ordinance No. 2257 dated August 12, • District x dwelling � � Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of 1997.) District R -2. • Barn, stable for keeping private animal • Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R -3. stock. • Apartment(s) and apartment buildings • Country club (publicly or privately • Convalescent homes. • Home occupations. owned). • Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this • Crop production. district. • Rooming and boarding houses. • Farm. • Truck garden (including greenhouse for R-5, Apartment/Medium Density and R -6, Apartment/High Density commercial purposes). • Single family dwellings, built under the zoning restrictions of District R -1A. • Golf Course. • Duplex dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions of District R-2. • Home Occupations. • Townhouse dwelling units built under the zoning restrictions • Pasturage. of District R -3. • Poultry production (non - commercial). • Apartment(s) and apartment buildings. • Convalescent homes. • Riding academy (private). (As amended • Home occupations. by Ordinance No. 2211 dated September • Dormitories. 26, 1996). • Parking lots associated with other permitted uses in this district. • Rooming and boarding houses. Shazlett/ 11 -08- 02/02 -225 Spring Creek Townhomes Subdivision PDD -H Zoning — 16.316 Acres Meritorious Modifications The Owner /Developer of this property is requesting a zoning change from R -3 — Townhouses to Planned Development District — Housing (PDD -H) to allow for the subdivision to be developed as shown on the Master Preliminary Plat. Several meritorious modifications to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance are requested to accommodate the proposed plan. The requested modifications are as follows: • Allow a minimum of 2 attached dwelling units instead of 3 units for townhouses. Only 2 adjacent lots can be positioned in one area of the tract due to the existing utility easements. This would allow the construction of dwelling units on these lots. Also, allowing only 2 attached units will make it possible to separate a group of contiguous dwelling units in areas where there are 4 or 5 lots in succession in the subdivision. • Increase the maximum number of lots allowed on a cul -de -sac street from 24 to 30 lots. The townhouse lots are much narrower than a single - family residential lot and a maximum of 24 lots limits the cul -de -sac street length to much less than the 600 feet maximum allowed by the Subdivision Regulations. • Allow parking spaces to be constructed adjacent to the street in the right -of -way of the bulb of the cul -de -sac streets. The parking spaces would be constructed partially in the street right -of -way and partially in common areas adjacent to the right -of -way. The parking spaces will be in areas of limited traffic volume due to their location at the end of the cul -de -sac streets. The parking spaces will increase the parking available for visitors to the subdivision. • The minimum front building setback distance is requested to be 20 feet rather than the 25 feet required for R -3 Zoning. This will allow more buildable area on the numerous lots that will have the existing utility easements located across them, which limits the dwelling unit size. It is also requested to change the minimum side setback distance for each group of contiguous buildings from 7.5 feet to 5 feet. The minimum distance between buildings would be 10 feet. The 5 feet side setback has been used successfully for single - family dwellings in Section 4 of the Castlegate Subdivision, and the Developer requests this change for this subdivision. Justification for PDD -H Zoning Meritorious Modifications to City Standards The Developer desires to develop the property as a conventional townhouse community with each dwelling unit on a separate lot with public streets instead of private streets, which many of the similar developments have chosen to use for access to each lot. It is the Developer's opinion that those type of developments are not distinguishable from a condominium or apartment project. Developments with private access streets typically do not have a dedicated street right -of -way; only access easements on the lots. This allow for a greater density of residential structures than can be achieved with a development using public streets. District R -3 Townhouse Zoning allows a maximum net density of 14 dwelling units per acre. The PDD -H development being proposed will have a gross density of 8.7 dwelling units per acre and a net density (excluding street right -of -way and common areas) of 13.7 dwelling units per acre. The Developer has incorporated some amenities into this development which will benefit not only the residents of this development, but the City as well. These include a boulevard street section off of Oxburgh Drive, which can include landscaping in the median. Also, none of the lots will be adjacent to the Oxburgh right -of -way, which will allow for landscaping and streetscaping in these common areas. A swimming pool and pavilion are proposed with a parking lot for the residents of the development. Sidewalks are proposed which will make the pool area accessible by pedestrians from any part of the development. Six feet wide concrete walks are also proposed in three locations to provide a connection for pedestrians and bicyclists to Decatur Drive and Oxburgh Drive. Decatur Drive is proposed to be constructed with a street section that includes a bike lane. This development is part of the 331.4 -acre Crowley Tract. The Crowley Tract includes a 38.1 acre conservation zone tract and 2 deed restricted open space tracts, which are 21.1 and 11.6 acres in size, respectively. Also, a 5.5 acre park is proposed. These areas are approximately 23% of the property which will be left as open space and not developed. These areas will preserve the existing wetlands and vegetation along the riparian corridors that they follow. Also, there is a detention facility which has some usable area for limited recreational activities. The Developer feels that the location of this proposed PDD -H development is such that the residents can access and use this open space, and it can be considered an additional amenity that will make people desire to reside in this development. PDD POLICY AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CITY COUNCIL On August 9, 2001 AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION On July 16, 2001 The goal of the Planned Development District is to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. In order to justify varying from certain standards, the proposed development should demonstrate community benefits. To achieve this goal, the City of College Station has adopted the following policies: 1. CONCEPTS ONLY: A PDD should not be used to guarantee specific site or building characteristics within a development. A PDD should be submitted for multiple sites, and should not be used to apply additional development standards to a single site. 2. RELIANCE ON EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: A PDD should not be used to require buffering or other standards that are over and above existing district standards. If the existing buffering standards are deemed inadequate, the standards themselves should be reviewed and upgraded. 3. INNOVATIVE DESIGN: A PDD application should be encouraged where a development is to follow a modern trend style such as new urbanism, mixed use, or cluster, and that includes all or some of the following elements: ❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources ❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and thoroughfares ❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access ❑ Preservation of significant tree stands ❑ Inclusion of neighborhood supporting uses such as workplaces, recreation, shopping, and personal services with orientation to the neighborhood and good pedestrian and bicycle access ❑ Incorporation of public transit waiting stations in pedestrian friendly areas ❑ Accommodation of the existing topography to minimize required grading ❑ A mix of residential densities and housing styles ❑ Inclusion of urban open spaces such as plazas or marketplaces ❑ Location of elementary school sites in areas easily accessible by pedestrians and cyclists ❑ Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in surrounding areas • o Avoidance of cul -de -sacs ❑ Traffic calming features ❑ Vistas ❑ Pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and paths ❑ Parking located such that it is screened or hidden from view o Avoidance of a monotonous "superblock" ❑ A commercial frontage that is two or three stories, with architectural embellishments o Street trees and peripheral landscaping ❑ Streetscape features 4. SENSITIVE AREAS: A PDD should be required in infill areas to assure similar residential densities to those of the surrounding area. 5. MERITORIOUS MODIFICATIONS: A developer may choose to request a PDD if the proposed development will result in alternative bulk standards than currently exist in the City of College Station development regulations. These may include variations such as: ➢ Decreased lot size ➢ Decreased lot dimensions ➢ Decreased right -of -way and/or street widths ➢ Alternative access to the public street requirements for lots, such as may be desired for traffic calming or to create vistas /views to internal or external amenities ➢ Reduction in standard buffering requirements or fencing requirements ➢ Increase in height restrictions ➢ Alternative sidewalk requirements ➢ Alternative site landscaping requirements If the developer requests significant variations from the above list, the plans should also include a significant amount of elements from the first list of beneficial development elements.